Post Apocalyptic Classic

Rating: 9/10 (15 November 2003)

I felt compelled to add my opinion to the comments here as this movie is being unjustly slaughtered.
It's not a zombie flick - if you're expecting 'Dawn of the Dead' you may be in for a let down. The people who are infected with Rage have a disease and don't eat human flesh. Sure, they run around in packs and attack the uninfected, but the film isn't about claustrophobia and cannibalism.
It's clearly homage to Day of the Triffids (and to a certain extent The Omega Man.) There's nothing wrong with that.
One of the reasons why 28 days later is being attacked here is because of people's erroneous expectations. People watch a movie trailer and think they can tell what the film is going to be like. We should learn that this isn't the case and often trailers just show the most action packed or exciting bits - I thought this was widely known!
To those who were disappointed when they went to see the film because they expected an out and out thriller, maybe they should have done just a little bit of research first. This is why we have the IMDB right?

To an earlier reviewer who made a snide remark towards British films, perhaps it'd be worth considering how many films are made in Britain compared to the US, and what proportion of those are high quality. Britain doesn't have much of a film industry compared to Hollywood, but I could name lots of good movies from both countries (and lots of Turkeys.)

******************** ***SPOILERS BELOW*** ********************
Those who point out holes in the plot are being a little harsh. When they drive into the tunnel, it's obvious that Frank (the driver) is suffering from a mental breakdown. Cut the guy some slack! He's just spent the last few days getting over the death of his wife (and everybody else) whilst protecting his daughter from bloodthirsty lunatics with a baseball bat and a riot shield. The guy's feeling a little crazy. Jim points out that it's a stupid idea to go underground but he's ignored.
In response to another point about the way the soldiers wanted to get 'laid,' this is explained by Major West as an attempt to give the men some hope of a future life that may contain some normality (a family and children perhaps.) Clearly, this isn't what happens and the soldiers have turned into callous thugs, but there is logic here. If you were the leader of a group of isolated men in a post-apocalyptic situation, would you not state that it is important to find women and attempt to build families and save the human race from extinction? In situations of extreme stress (like wars) noble men can commit terrible acts and good intentions can be warped by desperation.
If you look a little deeper into this movie, it becomes apparent that it's not about zombies at all, but rather about the perilous state of the human condition. We think we are civilised and 'good' but what happens to us when the excrement hits the fan? Does the 'goodness' evaporate away leaving only savagery?
This movie seems to be saying that we turn a blind eye to the terrible things that are going on around the world because they're not happening to us. Status quo is maintained for those that live in wealthy nations, but as soon as our the rug is pulled from under us, we turn into the same people that we see brutally killing eachother on the six o'clock news. When our security is taken away, we cease to see people as individuals...they become casualty reports. Women become incubators or objects that are easy to brutalize (Bosnia anyone?)
Our morals and civility are eaten away as self-preservation kicks in big time. As Jim finds out towards the end of the film, you don't need to be infected to get the rage...it's already within all of us and is waiting to come out.
If this is the case, should we accept our innate violence and go with it when it's needed, or should fight against it and struggle to contain our selfish desires?
All of the characters in the film (apart from the young girl) go through this moral crisis. Selena learns that survival isn't everything when it's at the expense of one's self respect, and Jim learns that violence is sometimes necessary and in some situations may be unavoidable.
For those of you that have seen Straw Dogs, a similar ethical difficulty faced by the main character. Does one use violence to prevent violence?
The question isn't really answered in either film. I was sickened by Jim's descent into barbarism, but wondered what I would do in his situation. Probably the same thing.....a scary thought.
Lots of other questions were raised in this movie and it left me thinking for quite a while. It also left me excited and repelled by the fact that it is very violent. In response to the earlier comment, which recommended skipping the first scenes if you're watching it with children, take my advice - don't watch any of this film with kids. It contains extreme violence throughout and deals with adult themes that are definitely not for the young.
To sum up, I implore you to not be put off by the negative comments about this movie that are expressed here. If you like intelligent films - this is one to try. Just don't watch it with your auntie Mable - she probably won't like it.